Jesus Robert Felix v. Harold J. Cardwell, Warden, Arizona State Prison

Ninth Circuit

Jesus Robert Felix v. Harold J. Cardwell, Warden, Arizona State Prison

545 F.2d 92, 23 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 394, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 6467

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedNovember 1, 1976

Docket76-1020

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 545 F.2d 92 (Jesus Robert Felix v. Harold J. Cardwell, Warden, Arizona State Prison) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jesus Robert Felix v. Harold J. Cardwell, Warden, Arizona State Prison, 545 F.2d 92, 23 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 394, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 6467 (9th Cir. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

In 1972 an Arizona jury convicted Felix of the offense of depositing or exploding an explosive on, in, or near a populated building (Ariz. Rev.Stat.Ann. § 13-922), and the court sentenced him to prison. He appealed unsuccessfully and then sought a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The District Court denied the writ.

On September 8, 1975, a judgment was filed and entered dismissing Felix’s petition. Thirty days thereafter, on October 8th, Felix had not filed a notice of appeal. See Fed.R.App.P. 4(a). On November 7th, thirty more days had elapsed, and even at that late date, Felix had filed neither the required notice, nor a motion to extend the time for filing such a notice, nor any other motion. In fact, he did not act until November 10, 1975, when he applied for a certificate of probable cause. This application was granted on November 25, 1975. Finally, on December 17, 1975, Felix filed a notice of appeal. We are obligated to raise the question of our court’s jurisdiction on our own motion.

In Alexander v. Sacha, 439 F.2d 742 (9th Cir. 1971), this court established that neither the District Court nor the Court of Appeals has any power to permit an appeal to proceed once the consecutive thirty-day periods specified in Rule 4(a), Fed.R.App.P., have elapsed without the appellant’s having filed a notice of appeal, a motion to extend the time for filing such a notice, or a motion tolling Rule 4(a). As we have said, Felix filed no motion or notice before November 8,1975, by which date the District Court had lost all power to permit the appeal. This court has no jurisdiction (Alexander v. Sacha, supra) and is specifically denied the authority to grant an extension on its own (Rules 2 and 26(b), Fed.R.App.P.).

The appeal is

DISMISSED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

In 1972 an Arizona jury convicted Felix of the offense of depositing or exploding an explosive on, in, or near a populated building (Ariz. Rev.Stat.Ann. § 13-922), and the court sentenced him to prison. He appealed unsuccessfully and then sought a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The District Court denied the writ.

On September 8, 1975, a judgment was filed and entered dismissing Felix’s petition. Thirty days thereafter, on October 8th, Felix had not filed a notice of appeal. See Fed.R.App.P. 4(a). On November 7th, thirty more days had elapsed, and even at that late date, Felix had filed neither the required notice, nor a motion to extend the time for filing such a notice, nor any other motion. In fact, he did not act until November 10, 1975, when he applied for a certificate of probable cause. This application was granted on November 25, 1975. Finally, on December 17, 1975, Felix filed a notice of appeal. We are obligated to raise the question of our court’s jurisdiction on our own motion.

In Alexander v. Sacha, 439 F.2d 742 (9th Cir. 1971), this court established that neither the District Court nor the Court of Appeals has any power to permit an appeal to proceed once the consecutive thirty-day periods specified in Rule 4(a), Fed.R.App.P., have elapsed without the appellant’s having filed a notice of appeal, a motion to extend the time for filing such a notice, or a motion tolling Rule 4(a). As we have said, Felix filed no motion or notice before November 8,1975, by which date the District Court had lost all power to permit the appeal. This court has no jurisdiction (Alexander v. Sacha, supra) and is specifically denied the authority to grant an extension on its own (Rules 2 and 26(b), Fed.R.App.P.).

The appeal is

DISMISSED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

545 F.2d 92, 23 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 394, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 6467, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jesus-robert-felix-v-harold-j-cardwell-warden-arizona-state-prison-ca9-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack